Many industries produce complex systems that have long service lives and thus must be continually monitored and engineered in order to meet, for example, evolving demands of the application as well as safety and maintenance concerns. Such systems may include, for example, aircraft, rail systems, medical systems, weapon systems, certain foods and drugs, and power generation plants where the continued support of the manufacturer and/or other originating entity is not only required for the upkeep of the systems, but possibly also to abide by state, federal, and/or international regulations administered by one or more corresponding agencies or to fulfill the terms of a military contract.
Such a situation is present with, for example, commercial aircraft sold by a manufacturer thereof to an airline which uses the aircraft as a part of its fleet. These aircraft such as, for example, the Models 707, 717, 727, 737, 747, 757, 767, 777 MD-11, MD-80, etc. produced by The Boeing Company incorporate extremely complex and expensive systems that face stringent scrutiny from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) in areas related to, for instance, safety and maintenance. However, these aircraft may sometimes experience problems, such as safety problems that have not yet been addressed and, thus, are not covered by a specific regulation or resolution. Such problems may include, for example, faulty fuel float switches on aircraft that may affect the airworthiness of such aircraft. These problems require remedies, nonetheless, and may require regulatory action by one or more respective agencies, particularly when the problem is recurrent or presents a significant safety hazard to operators or other persons.
Typically, for example, when safety problems occur in the aircraft that may affect the safe operation, or airworthiness, of the aircraft, a set of guidelines are administered to assess and to resolve the problem. One such set of guidelines is Air Transport Association (ATA) Specification 111. Under ATA Specification 111, when a concern regarding one or more components of a specific aircraft is identified or otherwise communicated by the manufacturer of the aircraft, the manufacturer notifies the original equipment manufacturer (OEM) of the respective component(s) as well as the FAA. Once the OEM and FAA have been notified, an initial safety assessment is conducted to determine whether the concern is a potential safety related-problem.
If the concern is assessed to be a potential safety-related problem, or if the FAA identifies the concern as a concern possibly targeted for regulatory action, a “Lead Airline” process is instituted to gather information from airline customers regarding the concern. In this regard, one airline is designated the Lead Airline, and is generally the airline with the most aircraft of the same series as the specific aircraft affected. Once the Lead Airline has been designated, the Lead Airline, in conjunction with the OEM and the ATA (the trade organization for the principal U.S. airlines), collaborate to review the concern to confirm the status of the concern as a safety-related problem.
During review of the concern, the Lead Airline is generally charged with gathering information from other airlines having aircraft of the same series as the specific aircraft affected to aid in the review. For example, the Lead Airline generally gathers information such as how many aircraft of the relevant series each airline operates, how many of the aircraft of the relevant series include the affected component(s), and whether the airline has encountered the concern on any of the relevant series of aircraft in the airline's fleet.
To gather the information, the Lead Airline typically communicates with the other airlines having aircraft of the same series as the specific aircraft affected via telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile. Whereas such communication methods are adequate, the Lead Airline generally has no incentive to actually contact all required parties and follow up as necessary. In this regard, as stated, the Lead Airline is typically the airline with the most aircraft of the same series as the aircraft affected. And as the Lead Airline is statistically in the best position to comment on the concern, the Lead Airline may not even feel compelled to attempt to communicate and/or follow up with the other airlines to gather additional information. Also, communicating with the other airlines via telephone, e-mail and/or facsimile is generally inefficient, cumbersome and does not allow for the timely communication of information that is often required in circumstances involving safety issues. Moreover, due to the inefficiency of conventional communication methods, the Lead Airline typically only has the opportunity to solicit information from airlines having aircraft of the same series as the specific aircraft affected, which can omit other airlines that could also have valuable additional information to contribute.